Republicans Criticize Deal That Led To American P.O.W.’s Release

Amid jubilation Saturday over the release of U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl from captivity by the Taliban, senior Republicans on Capitol Hill said they were troubled by the means by which it was accomplished, which was a deal to release five Afghan detainees from the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The top Republicans on the Senate and House Armed Services Committees went so far as to accuse President Obama of having broken the law, which requires the administration to notify Congress before any transfers from Guantanamo are carried out.

“Trading five senior Taliban leaders from detention in Guantanamo Bay for Bergdahl’s release may have consequences for the rest of our forces and all Americans. Our terrorist adversaries now have a strong incentive to capture Americans. That incentive will put our forces in Afghanistan and around the world at even greater risk,” House Armed Services Committee chairman Howard P. McKeon (R-Calif.) and ranking Senate Armed Services Republican James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said in a joint statement.

Lawmakers were not notified of the Guantanamo detainees’ transfer until after it occurred.

The law requires the secretary of defense to notify relevant congressional committees at least 30 days before making any transfers of prisoners, to explain the reason and to provide assurances that those released would not be in a position to re-engage in activities that could threaten the United States or its interests.

Before the current law was enacted at the end of last year, the conditions were even more stringent. However, the administration and some Democrats had pressed for them to be loosened, in part to give them more flexibility to negotiate for Bergdahl’s release.

A senior administration official, agreeing to speak on the condition of anonymity, acknowledged that the law was not followed.

“Due to a near-term opportunity to save Sergeant Bergdahl’s life, we moved as quickly as possible,” the official said. “The administration determined that given these unique and exigent circumstances, such a transfer should go forward notwithstanding the notice requirement.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said that the detainees transferred from Guantanamo to Qatar, where they are to stay for at least a year, “are hardened terrorists who have the blood of Americans and countless Afghans on their hands. I am eager to learn what precise steps are being taken to ensure that these vicious and violent Taliban extremists never return to the fight against the United States and our partners or engage in any activities that can threaten the prospects for peace and security in Afghanistan.”

I can’t speak to the legal issues at play here, but I would imagine that the law in question has at least some exceptions contained within it that would apply in a situation such as this where time is of the essence. Even without those exceptions, though, it’s unclear what the penalty might be for failure to comply with the 30 day notice requirement other than giving Congress the ability to air a legitimate complaint.

As to the broader issue, though, it strikes me that it’s going to be hard for the GOP to come out of a real battle with the President over this looking good, if that’s what they choose to do here. Yes, it’s true that we have “negotiated with terrorists” to ensure the release of an American Prisoner of War, but it’s not as if we haven’t done that before. President Reagan did it on several occasions as part of the efforts to ensure the release of the Americans and others who were kidnapped in Lebanon back in the 1980s and, indeed, went so far as to engage in secret diplomatic negotiations with Iran to advance those discussions. But what else were he and President Obama supposed to do? In both cases, rescue seemed to be unlikely due to where the men in question were being held. So, if you want to get the prisoner out alive, you have to talk to the people holding them. Yes, we’re admittedly taking a risk in releasing these five men from Guantanamo, but prisoner exchanges have been a part of war since time immemorial, why is it such a bad thing this time?

On a final note, I guess I’d just have to wonder what these Republicans would say to Sgt. Bergdahl’s parents. Would they tell them that we should have let their son continue to be held hostage to prove a broader political point? We like to say that we would never leave a solider behind, and today we proved that. Sgt. Bergdahl is coming home, and that strikes me as a good thing. Perhaps Republicans should stop trying to score political points against the President and be thankful for that.

About Doug MataconisDoug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May, 2010 and also writes at Below The Beltway.
Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

I’m not a fan of legitimating the Taliban, which isn’t a proper combatant force under the Geneva Conventions. But, otherwise, POW swaps are fairly common.

I’m mildly troubled with the administration yet again thumbing its nose at the law on a matter of consultations with Congress. But, again, that’s hardly an invention of this president and the”exigent circumstances” argument strikes me as plausible if this was a hastily arranged deal.

But what else were he and President Obama supposed to do? In both cases, rescue seemed to be unlikely due to where the men in question were being held. So, if you want to get the prisoner out alive, you have to talk to the people holding them. Yes, we’re admittedly taking a risk in releasing these five men from Guantanamo, but prisoner exchanges have been a part of war since time immemorial, why is it such a bad thing this time?
——————————————
Exactly. Besides, when the Republican Party complains – over a 6 year period – about all of the actions, words and decisions of this administration, what are the odds that people will not conclude that this is yet another episode of “Just Politics”?

Even without those exceptions, though, it’s unclear what the penalty might be for failure to comply with the 30 day notice requirement other than giving Congress the ability to air a legitimate complaint.

Do you really have to ask? Isn’t it rather clear that this is obviously yet another impeachable offense?

Yes, we’re admittedly taking a risk in releasing these five men from Guantanamo, but prisoner exchanges have been a part of war since time immemorial, why is it such a bad thing this time?

’cause Obama did it.

I don’t know, I’m getting lazy with my thinking. There’s the legitimate accusation that the administration broke the law. Hell, they straight up admit they did. Maybe Bergdahl flipped off a Republican once. You have the possible valuation issue of how we had to trade five prisoners for one soldier, which actually seems rather Israeli-Palestinian in terms of lopsidedness. Perhaps Bergdahl’s father flipped off a Republican once.

It’s a complicated…issue, I guess. Man, I just really can’t care about Republican complaining anymore.

I think the current record for exchanges is 1,000 Palestinian terrorists for 1 Israeli soldier’s body.

And in the cold calculus of reality, the price has now been set: 1 American PFC (rank when captured) is worth 5 top Taliban leaders. The Taliban now has a proven incentive to capture American service members.

n a final note, I guess I’d just have to wonder what these Republicans would say to Sgt. Bergdahl’s parents. Would they tell them that we should have let their son continue to be held hostage to prove a broader political point? We like to say that we would never leave a solider behind, and today we proved that. Sgt. Bergdahl is coming home, and that strikes me as a good thing. Perhaps Republicans should stop trying to score political points against the President and be thankful for that.

President Obama should start working on what he’ll tell the family of the next American to be kidnapped and held for ransom — either money or terrorists. And the families of Americans who these released prisoners might end up killing.

1. The SOBs now have an incentive to “capture Americans”? Perhaps killing them outright is preferable, so long as it prevents a Democratic President from any kind of credit. How thoughtful of Rep. McKeon and Sen. Inhofe.

2. If this opportunity wasn’t taken, and the SOBs videotaped killing Sgt. Bergdahl, who thinks these two Republican worthies would be defending the President, on principle?

@Jenos Idanian #13: “The Taliban now has a proven incentive to capture American service members.”

Whereas just yesterday they were inviting them over for tea and cakes. Imagine how silly they must feel now that they realize that all this time they should have been trying to capture or even kill the American forces in their country. Boy, Obama shure must be dumb to give them this idea!

This has been another lesson in international affairs from the dumbest man on the internet, the troll who calls himself Jenos.

the”exigent circumstances” argument strikes me as plausible if this was a hastily arranged deal.

James, I know, and you do too, that there are Republicans in Congress, and given even half a chance they would screw this deal in a heartbeat if it meant putting Obama in his place. Hells Bells James, the entire Republican party is an “exigent circumstance.”

And in the cold calculus of reality, the price has now been set: 1 American PFC (rank when captured) is worth 5 top Taliban leaders. The Taliban now has a proven incentive to capture American service members.

Where are you getting this information? I’m not arguing for or against, I just haven’t seen anything that said these were “top leaders”. I did read a comment somewhere that said these 5 had only committed offenses against fellow Afghans, not Americans (which would make them nothing but Afghan criminals, subject to justice in an Afghan court), but again I have no idea where people are getting this information, so I can’t argue one way or another.

@Tyrell:do they have any more US service people being held as prisoner ?

From Doug’s post earlier today:

WASHINGTON — The lone American prisoner of war from the Afghan conflict, captured by insurgents nearly five years ago, has been released to American forces in exchange for five Taliban prisoners held at the Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility, Obama administration officials said Saturday.

since when do “several” republicans represent the entire party anyway? the 5-1 ratio is kind of weak, can we at least drone them in the near future?!

@stonetools: we got way more of ours back, and pretty cheap. just because carter couldn’t figure out anything and left them to rot…..well, i could go on.
we did leave some of our own behind, somewhere in libya i believe, remember?!

Oh, if only President Obama had traded advanced weapons to the Taliban for Sgt. Bergdahl, and then used the proceeds from those arm sales to fund a terrorist army in Central America, then maybe this would be a deal that the Republicans could have gotten behind! There is, after all, solid precedent for that under Ronald Reagan…..

@James Joyner: The problem will always be the American system of government. In a situation where the executive and legislature can block much of each other’s actions, the two are held by different ideological unified parties and politics is seen as a zero-sum game, the system must break down to unbearable gridlock.

Checks and balances were a very good idea at the time of the founding, given the power the executive (read: Kings) usually had, while the legislature was rather weak in comparison, if there was a proper legislative branch at all. But the system is no longer useful in the modern age, and it is a sign of the strong commitment to democracy and the constitution that Americans have that they managed to make it work for so long, while most others who tried it had regular military coups and other breakdowns of their constitutional order.

This year’s most extraordinary example of slimeball politics involves the former hostage Terry Anderson, who is running for state senator in a district in southern Ohio. His opponent, Joy Padgett, a longtime Republican functionary, links him and Dan Rather as two liberal journalists who don’t get their facts straight, going on to show a photo of Anderson shaking hands with a Middle Eastern–looking man and accusing him of being soft on terrorism.

Anderson, a former chief Mideast correspondent for the Associated Press, was taken hostage by Hezbollah in Lebanon in 1985 and held until 1991. Following his release, he returned to Lebanon with a CNN crew and searched out his former captors. A photo from that trip is the one now being used by Padgett.

[...]

“The picture,” he continued, referring to the photo of himself shaking hands with the Hezbollah official, “is one of the guys who kidnapped me, who held me for seven years, who chained me and blindfolded me. I went back to Lebanon with a CNN news crew and looked him up and put him on camera and asked him, Why did you do this?

“She now says I am an apologist for terrorists.That’s sheer nonsense. It’s offensive. I’ve just about had enough.”

@al-Ameda: Why was this American soldier being held ? Why did this take so long ? The people who were holding this man prisoner (this “Taliban” or whatever they call themselves), need to be held accountable. This should not have taken five years.
“Payback time” (Ventura, “The Predator”)

@James Joyner:@DC Loser:
I am a conservative i
n many respects and belief, but I always marvel at he remarkable accuracy Republican politicians have when aiming at their feet!!!!!!! FOR Pet’s sake, idiots, the soldier is HOME. Just shut up and WELCOME him home!

Jenos, are you saying that the Taliban, and terrorists in general, had not calculated the value of taking American soldiers prisoner before this negotiated deal? Now, all of a sudden, they’re going to say, “Aw, shyt! This worked! Let’s take more Americans prisoner!” Is that what you’re offering?

That’s just silly thinking. As though they didn’t have precedent of the value of taking prisoners. Please, exercise some energy in thinking things to a rational conclusion next time, instead of jerking that knee every time you perceive Obama has done something outrageous. I understand you don’t like the President; but you’re letting that dislike color (???) your thinking and, as usual, it’s making you look silly.

@James Joyner:
It’s not just the flouting of the rule of law by Obama, it’s the hypocrisy. As a candidate, while criticizing Bush on signing statements, Oabama said, “We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

Why was this American soldier being held ? Why did this take so long ? The people who were holding this man prisoner (this “Taliban” or whatever they call themselves), need to be held accountable. This should not have taken five years.
“Payback time” (Ventura, “The Predator”)

See, this is the problem with Republicans. They conduct foreign policy as though world affairs are a Tom Clancy novel. I’ve brought up this point here before: remember Reagan prepared for the Reykjavik summit by reading “Red Storm Rising?”

Similarly, they conduct domestic policy according to another fictional literary work…

It’s not just the flouting of the rule of law by Obama, it’s the hypocrisy. As a candidate, while criticizing Bush on signing statements, Oabama said, “We’re not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end-run around Congress.”

I’m sure that Darrell Issa will open an investigation into this lawlessness.

@dennis: Actually I have only voted for a Republican once: 1972 election: Richard Nixon – George McGovern. McGovern was a WWII veteran, a bomber pilot, and an honorable man. But his campaign was a disaster: disorganized, bad decisions. Even at that, there was hardly no way that he could have won against a second term Nixon president.
For most of my life, there was virtually no Republican party in existence in our town and county since the 1860’s. This is still southern Democrat country around here. I was a big supporter of Johnson and Hubert Humphrey. If Humphrey had another week, he would have won that election. But neither he nor anyone else running was going for an immediate withdrawal from Vietnam. On that issue, all the candidates in ’68 and ’72 were similar. No “bugging out” as Nixon always said.
I am certainly glad that soldier was released and know that these exchanges are nothing new. It just seemed to take a long time, seems like it could have been done some time ago.
A lot of Vietnam pow’s were never released or accounted for. There needs to be an investigation about that.

I support what the President has done. You best believe that these 5 terrorists will be watched like a hawk after their release in a year and if these terrorists goes back to their old ways then this President has no problem taking them out as he has taking out more terrorists than any other President in history.

@dennis: Jenoz is arguing (whether he knows it or not) that it is better to give up a present and definite good for fear of a possible future evil. Which is about the worst reasoning I’ve ever encountered.

Your side looks at the past: you seem to think that by yelling how some Republican somewhere did something similar, that means you can demand people shut up. Fast & Furious was an expansion of a Bush-era program. The Heritage Foundation studied something vaguely similar to ObamaCare. Reagan dealt with Iran over hostages.

This isn’t any kind of discussion, it’s making excuses. This is to avoid having to actually discuss the matter.

I’m not looking for historical precedents so I can shut up the other side, I’m looking at what kind of precedent this is setting. Here’s a group that wants something from the US, so they kidnapped an American and made demands, which we met.

I’m not looking for historical precedents so I can shut up the other side, I’m looking at what kind of precedent this is setting. Here’s a group that wants something from the US, so they kidnapped an American and made demands, which we met.

Bullshit…you’re looking for any way possible to slam and trash the President…people point out how this kind of thing has happened before to showcase your tremendous hypocrisy…it’s nothing when other presidents do it, but when Obama does it, it’s the worst possible thing that’s ever happened!!!!!!! Oh, and no one is trying to shut you up…on the contrary, the more you spew, the more you illustrate yourself as a fool and an endless source of amusement for the rest of us…carry on…

@An Interesed Party: OK, IP, let’s cut through the crap. I just found out that the law involved here was signed by Obama himself. So here’s a law that he supposedly believed in enough to put his name on, but the very first time it could be applied, he chose not to.

Your side looks at the past: you seem to think that by yelling how some Republican somewhere did something similar, that means you can demand people shut up. Fast & Furious was an expansion of a Bush-era program. The Heritage Foundation studied something vaguely similar to ObamaCare. Reagan dealt with Iran over hostages.

None of this has anything to do with your desire to forgo the definite good of returning this soldier to his home out of fear that a future evil may one day materialize.

Fear exists to warn us of danger. When you let it dictate your actions you become a slave to your own passions.

@Jenos Idanian #13: And for the record: if a law required that this man continue in his deplorable condition, that law is an ass. I would approve of any president breaking it. Obama, of whom I have been a fierce critic, did a good thing and I am proud of him for it.

@Ben Wolf: The law in question didn’t forbid this deal explicitly. It said that before any detainees at Guantanamo were moved anywhere, for any reason, Congress had to be notified at least 30 days in advance.

Obama could have brought in Harry Reid and John Boehner, told them about the deal, and said that if either of them leaked it, he’d make sure the American people knew they’d screwed the deal. That wouldn’t meet the letter of the law, but would at least be in the spirit of the law he signed.

@Timothy Watson: Oh, bullshit. Clinton negotiated with the terrorist Yassir Arafat. Bush negotiated with the terrorist Muammar Khadafy. The issue here is Obama deliberately and willfully breaking a law that he himself signed.

@Timothy Watson: Remember folks, according to the GOP, only one President could negotiate with terrorists and it not be a scandal: Ronald Reagan.

And when Reagan did that, there was a special prosecutor and investigations and indictments and convictions. Does this mean that that was wrong? Are you prepared to give Oliver North an apology?

This is becoming a very predictable pattern: every single Obama scandal provokes the left to find a similar situation under a Republican and throw that up, That’s supposed to end the issue then and there.

This is becoming a very predictable pattern: every single Obama scandal provokes the left to find a similar situation under a Republican and throw that up, That’s supposed to end the issue then and there.

What’s predictable is that Republicans run investigations on everything Obama does. Perhaps Darrell Issa will fulfill all of your dreams and run a multi-year investigation on this incident too.

@Cessna: From what I understand they were traded for Bergdahl with an agreement to hold them for a period of one year, at which time US Troops will be pulling out, and we would, by law, have to release all detainees anyways. Quite frankly, we didn’t lose anything by getting one of our own out of captivity.